Gowing Linda, Ali Robert, White Jason M
Discipline of Pharmacology, University of Adelaide, Frome Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5005.
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, Australia, SA 5001.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 29;5(5):CD002021. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002021.pub4.
Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.
To assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications.
We updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
Ten studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.Nine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.Five studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.The quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.We could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.Insufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using opioid antagonists plus alpha-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Using opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.
在进行无药物治疗之前或作为长期替代治疗的终点,有计划的戒断是必要步骤。
评估阿片类拮抗剂加最小程度镇静用于阿片类戒断的效果。比较对象为安慰剂以及更成熟的戒毒方法,如美沙酮递减剂量、肾上腺素能激动剂、丁丙诺啡和对症药物。
我们更新了对以下数据库截至2016年12月的检索:Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、心理学文摘数据库和科学引文索引数据库。我们还检索了两个试验注册库,并检查纳入研究的参考文献列表以获取更多相关研究的参考文献。
我们纳入了随机和半随机对照临床试验以及前瞻性对照队列研究,这些研究比较了阿片类拮抗剂加最小程度镇静与其他方法或不同阿片类拮抗剂方案用于阿片类依赖参与者的戒断情况。
我们采用了Cochrane预期的标准方法程序。
10项研究(6项随机对照试验和4项前瞻性队列研究,涉及955名参与者)符合本综述的纳入标准。我们认为这10项研究中有7项在我们评估的至少一个领域存在高偏倚风险。9项研究比较了阿片类拮抗剂 - 肾上腺素能激动剂组合与主要基于α - 肾上腺素能激动剂(可乐定或洛非西定)的治疗方案。纳入研究进行的其他比较(安慰剂、美沙酮递减剂量、丁丙诺啡)过于多样,无法进行任何有意义的分析。因此,本综述重点关注9项比较阿片类拮抗剂(纳曲酮或纳洛酮)加可乐定或洛非西定与主要基于可乐定或洛非西定治疗的研究。5项研究在住院环境中进行,2项研究针对接受日间护理的门诊患者,2项研究仅在阿片类拮抗剂给药的第一天使用日间护理,1项研究将研究环境描述为门诊但未说明提供的护理水平。纳入研究在阿片类拮抗剂治疗方案类型、比较对象、评估的结局指标以及评估结局的方法方面存在异质性。因此,任何总体效应估计的有效性都值得怀疑,所以我们未对任何分析计算合并结果。阿片类拮抗剂 - 肾上腺素能激动剂组合与α - 肾上腺素能激动剂治疗的证据质量非常低。2项研究报告了戒断高峰严重程度的数据,4项研究报告了戒断期间平均严重程度的数据。阿片类拮抗剂与肾上腺素能激动剂联合引起的戒断高峰似乎比单独使用可乐定或洛非西定管理的戒断更严重,但戒断期间的平均严重程度较低。在某些情况下,与肾上腺素能激动剂管理的戒断相比,拮抗剂诱导的戒断可能与显著更高的治疗完成率相关。然而,该结果在各研究中并不一致,且任何益处的程度高度不确定。我们无法提取关于不良事件发生情况的任何数据,但2项研究报告了首次服用纳曲酮后出现谵妄或意识模糊。初始剂量较高时以及使用纳曲酮而非纳洛酮(半衰期较短)时,谵妄可能更易发生,但我们无法从现有证据中证实这一点。现有数据不足以就最佳治疗持续时间得出任何结论。
使用阿片类拮抗剂加α - 肾上腺素能激动剂是管理阿片类戒断的一种可行方法。然而,尚不清楚这种方法是否比主要用肾上腺素能激动剂管理的戒断更能缩短戒断持续时间或促进向纳曲酮治疗的转换。由于存在呕吐、腹泻和谵妄的可能性,在给予阿片类拮抗剂后的数小时内需进行高水平的监测和支持。目前,使用阿片类拮抗剂诱导和加速阿片类戒断并非一个活跃的研究或临床实践领域,研究界应更优先研究促进向纳曲酮缓释制剂转换的方法,如基于丁丙诺啡的方法。